On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 01:13:44PM -0700, Mark Glines wrote:
I just came up with an artificial benchmark and found that gcc-3.4.6
runs slightly faster with #pragma once protecting a header that includes
lots of other headers. (a chain of 200 other headers, in my test.) By
"slightly", I mean "co
On Jun 12, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Mark Glines wrote:
On the other hand, will #pragma once allow us to get rid of all of
those ugly header guard macros? If so, I would argue to keep it for
maintenance reasons, regardless of any performance benefits.
No, not at all, because #pragma once is only a p
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 01:13:44PM -0700, Mark Glines wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:39:35 -0700
> Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do we have any proof that it does speed up compilation with msvc?
> > Littering our code with "optimizations" for odd compilers is also an
> > unhealt
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:39:35 -0700
Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> jerry gay wrote:
> > On 6/12/07, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm very uncomfortable with removing #pragma once from our header
> >> files. It
On 6/12/07, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 12, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> Do we have any proof that it does speed up compilation with msvc?
> Littering our code with "optimizations" for odd compilers is also
> an unhealthy precedent.
Darn you and your pragmatism!
On Jun 12, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
Do we have any proof that it does speed up compilation with msvc?
Littering our code with "optimizations" for odd compilers is also
an unhealthy precedent.
Darn you and your pragmatism!
DO we indeed have proof of a speedup?
xoa
--
Andy
jerry gay wrote:
On 6/12/07, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm very uncomfortable with removing #pragma once from our header
files. It is perfectly valid C89 code, and I think bowing to a
broken compiler is unhealthy precedent.
to add some context, in r18884 andy commit
On Jun 12, 2007, at 9:38 AM, jerry gay wrote:
now, to the matter at hand: i agree with andy. we shouldn't revert
this because one broken compiler doesn't like it. however, we should
make it clear in the documentation that the particular version of that
compiler has trouble compiling valid C89,
On 6/12/07, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm very uncomfortable with removing #pragma once from our header
files. It is perfectly valid C89 code, and I think bowing to a
broken compiler is unhealthy precedent.
to add some context, in r18884 andy committed a patc
.5 or compiling a more recent gcc themselves.
That is, as long as it is not causing problems anywhere else.
Cheers,
Joshua Gatcomb
a.k.a. Limbic~Region
On 6/12/07, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm very uncomfortable with removing #pragma once from our header
files. It is per
I'm very uncomfortable with removing #pragma once from our header
files. It is perfectly valid C89 code, and I think bowing to a
broken compiler is unhealthy precedent.
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
11 matches
Mail list logo
